DCT

1:17-cv-00780

Cywee Group Ltd v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00780, D. Del., 07/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district for purposes of patent venue, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphone products infringe two patents related to methods for processing data from motion sensors to determine a device's orientation in three-dimensional space.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using on-board sensors like accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers to accurately track a device's movements and orientation, a foundational capability for modern smartphone features such as screen rotation, motion-controlled gaming, and augmented reality.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges priority for the patents-in-suit based on a 2010 provisional application and earlier reduction to practice in 2009 via an internal "JIL Phone Project." Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both asserted patents were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The asserted independent claims—Claim 14 of the '438 Patent and Claim 10 of the '978 Patent—were cancelled by the USPTO in IPRs that concluded in 2024 and 2023, respectively.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-29 Alleged priority date for '438 Patent based on reduction to practice (Compl. ¶13)
2010-01-06 Priority date for '438 and '978 Patents based on Provisional Application filing (Compl. ¶12)
2013-05-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 Issued
2013-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 Issued
2017-07-06 Complaint Filing Date
2023-09-15 '978 Patent IPR Certificate Issued, cancelling asserted Claim 10
2024-08-21 '438 Patent IPR Certificate Issued, cancelling asserted Claim 14

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 - "3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement Thereof" (Issued May 14, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art motion-sensing devices, particularly those with 5-axis sensors, could not accurately calculate a device's orientation, especially when subjected to dynamic movements (i.e., accelerations other than gravity). This limitation resulted in errors when translating the device's real-world motion to a pointer or cursor on a 2D screen ('438 Patent, col. 3:5-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system and method using a six-axis motion sensor module (combining a 3-axis accelerometer and a 3-axis rotation sensor) to improve accuracy. The core of the solution is a "comparison method" where the system calculates a "predicted" orientation based on gyroscope data and compares it against a "measured" state derived from accelerometer data. This comparison allows for the correction of accumulated errors, resulting in an "updated state" that more accurately reflects the device's true orientation (yaw, pitch, and roll) in 3D space ('438 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:14-29; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide more reliable "absolute" 3D orientation data for handheld devices, enabling more sophisticated motion-based user interfaces and applications that function correctly even during active use ('438 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s infringement allegations focus on independent Claim 14 (Compl. ¶178).
  • The essential elements of method Claim 14 are:
    • Obtaining a "previous state" of the six-axis motion sensor module from a prior time.
    • Obtaining a "current state" by measuring angular velocities at the current time.
    • Obtaining a "measured state" by both measuring axial accelerations and calculating "predicted axial accelerations" based on the current state.
    • Obtaining an "updated state" by comparing the current state with the measured state.
    • Calculating and converting the updated state into the resulting deviation, including yaw, pitch, and roll angles.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶178).

U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 - "3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Rotations of the 3D Pointing Device Thereof" (Issued October 8, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Building on the '438 Patent, this invention addresses the additional problem of gyroscope "drift" over time and interference from external magnetic fields, which can degrade the accuracy of orientation tracking ('978 Patent, col. 3:6-14, col. 4:4-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a nine-axis system that adds a 3-axis magnetometer to the gyroscope and accelerometer. The magnetometer provides a stable, absolute heading reference based on the Earth's magnetic field. The invention uses a sophisticated comparison method, including a "data association model," to intelligently fuse the data from all nine axes, filter out noise and interference, and generate a transformed output for a display ('978 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-65; Fig. 12).
  • Technical Importance: By incorporating a magnetometer to provide an absolute directional reference, the invention aimed to create a more robust orientation system suitable for navigation applications and to prevent the long-term drift that is an inherent weakness of gyroscope-only systems ('978 Patent, col. 3:20-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s infringement allegations focus on independent Claim 10 (Compl. ¶247).
  • The essential elements of method Claim 10 are:
    • Generating an "orientation output" associated with the device's orientation relative to a "global reference frame associated with Earth."
    • Generating a "rotation output" associated with the device's rotation in its own "spatial reference frame."
    • Using both the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a "transformed output" for a display device.
    • Specifying that the outputs are generated by a "nine-axis motion sensor module."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶247).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses various Motorola smartphones, including the Moto G Plus (5th Gen), Moto G (4th Gen), Moto Z series, and Droid Turbo 2 ("Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶22-23, ¶¶188-189). The complaint includes several images identifying the accused devices, such as the Motorola Moto G Plus (5th Gen) (Compl. p. 7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain the hardware necessary to practice the inventions, including 3-axis accelerometers, 3-axis gyroscopes, and, for the '978 Patent, 3-axis geomagnetic sensors (Compl. ¶¶27-28, 191). It is alleged that the Android operating system on these devices uses data from these sensors to calculate the device's "attitude" or orientation (Compl. ¶41, ¶195). This functionality is allegedly used to enable features such as motion-controlled gaming and orientation-aware applications like maps and navigation (Compl. ¶¶197-198, 205-206).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits C and D) that were not provided with the pleading. The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

  • '438 Patent Narrative Summary: CyWee alleges that the Accused Products, by their normal operation, perform the method of asserted claim 14 (Compl. ¶178). The theory rests on the allegation that the Android operating system, when processing data from the on-board 3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyroscope, necessarily performs the claimed steps of obtaining previous, current, and measured states, and comparing them to calculate a corrected device attitude (Compl. ¶¶32-33, 41). The core of the infringement allegation is that the standard sensor fusion algorithms within the Android OS meet the specific, multi-step comparison and updating process required by the claim.
  • '978 Patent Narrative Summary: CyWee alleges that certain Accused Products infringe asserted claim 10 by using their nine-axis sensor suites (accelerometer, gyroscope, and geomagnetic sensor) in a manner that practices the claimed method (Compl. ¶247). The infringement theory is that the Android OS generates an "orientation output" (an absolute orientation tied to Earth via the magnetometer and accelerometer) and a "rotation output" (from the gyroscope), and then uses both to generate a "transformed output" that controls what is shown on the device's display, such as in a map or game application (Compl. ¶¶195-198).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Algorithmic Equivalence: A central technical question for both patents is whether the integrated sensor fusion algorithms in the accused Android operating system perform the specific, structured steps recited in the claims. For the '438 Patent, this involves determining if the OS performs a discrete "comparison" between a "predicted" state and a "measured" state as claimed. For the '978 Patent, it involves determining if the OS generates distinct "orientation" and "rotation" outputs that are then combined, or if it uses a more holistic fusion process.
    • Evidentiary Basis: The complaint asserts that the accused functionality exists but provides limited detail on the specific algorithms used by the Android OS, instead citing generally to the Android developer library for the existence of a "Sensor Coordinate System" (Compl. ¶35). A point of contention may be the factual evidence required to prove that the accused software operates in the precise manner claimed by the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from '438 Patent, Claim 14: "obtaining an updated state ... by comparing the current state with the measured state"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core corrective step of the invention. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the accused Android OS performs an operation that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether generic sensor fusion is covered or if a more specific algorithm is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the comparison in general terms as a way to "eliminate or reduce accumulated errors and noises" by using signals from both the rotation sensor and the accelerometer ('438 Patent, col. 5:1-13). This could support an interpretation that covers any algorithm using both sensor types to produce a corrected output.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific embodiment using quaternion mathematics and a data association model to create the updated state ('438 Patent, col. 13:26-44; Eq. 11). This language may support a narrower construction limited to this specific mathematical implementation or a close equivalent.

  • Term from '978 Patent, Claim 10: "orientation output associated with ... a global reference frame associated with Earth"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the invention from systems that only track relative motion. Proving infringement requires showing that the accused device generates an output tied to an absolute external frame (Earth), not just its own local frame.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this output can be generated using a magnetometer to sense the Earth's magnetic field or an accelerometer to sense gravity, providing an absolute reference to correct for drift ('978 Patent, col. 3:20-25). This could support reading the term on any system that uses such an absolute reference.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts an "orientation sensor" as a distinct component (which itself may contain a processor) that generates the "orientation output" ('978 Patent, Fig. 14, 1410). This could support an argument that the claim requires a modular architecture where this output is generated separately before being combined with the "rotation output," potentially excluding integrated, single-stage sensor fusion algorithms.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents. The allegations are based on Motorola creating and disseminating product manuals, instructions, and marketing materials that allegedly encourage end-users to operate the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶24, 190).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful infringement." However, it alleges that Motorola has knowledge of the patents and infringement "at least as a result of the filing of this action," which could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶¶24, 190).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • The Effect of IPR: The most significant development in this case occurred after the complaint was filed: the asserted claims (Claim 14 of the '438 Patent and Claim 10 of the '978 Patent) were cancelled in subsequent IPR proceedings. A central and likely dispositive issue for the court will be the impact of these cancellations, which appear to render the core allegations of the complaint moot.
  • Algorithmic Equivalence: Assuming the claims were valid, a key evidentiary question would be one of functional and algorithmic equivalence: does the complex, integrated sensor fusion software in the Android OS perform the specific, discrete, multi-step methods recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented methods and the accused software's actual operation?
  • Claim Scope: The case would also turn on a question of definitional scope during claim construction. Would the court define key terms like "comparing the current state with the measured state" broadly enough to encompass general sensor fusion, or narrowly, limiting the claims to the specific mathematical and architectural embodiments detailed in the patent specifications?